NATIONAL RAILCARD - SENIOR RAILCARD REFUNDS DUE TO COVID-19 DISRUPTION

pdel61

So the cost of a 3 year senior railcard I believe is £70 for 156 weeks, which is a little under 45p per week and we were in lockdown for 8 weeks, so I guess a refund of £3.59 could be regarded as due.

eskbanker

pdel61 said:

So the cost of a 3 year senior railcard I believe is £70 for 156 weeks, which is a little under 45p per week and we were in lockdown for 8 weeks, so I guess a refund of £3.59 could be regarded as due.

The railcard holder might regard it that way, but as the provider (with government backing) doesn't then the point is moot!

Unless anyone believes there's a strong enough legal case somehow to get it in front of a court, but nothing has been highlighted that would fit that bill....

epm-84

pdel61 said:

So the cost of a 3 year senior railcard I believe is £70 for 156 weeks, which is a little under 45p per week and we were in lockdown for 8 weeks, so I guess a refund of £3.59 could be regarded as due.

Although, what if you normally only use it against a £99 ticket to travel to relatives for Christmas? The £33 saving on one ticket per year would be enough to justify having the railcard and the previous lockdown wouldn't have prevented you from making any journeys you normally make.  That's probably why they decided to not just give everyone refunds/extensions.  For the example I've given it could be equivalent to giving someone a free year for no reason.

Norah_Bone

My question was less for my own benefit than for a group that appears to be sadly under-represented in our society. Many elderly people had no option to travel, as they were shielding and even when full lockdown was removed everyone (not just the elderly) was told not to travel unless it was really necessary - and it is still the message today - and I don't think the weekly bingo trip (a comment I took to be a tad condescending btw) would really cut it. For me personally it is not a financial hardship but for others it will be. What about the elderly pensioner who can only afford one or two trips a year to see distant relatives and only if they can get a substantially discounted ticket?. £170 per week does not stretch very far these days (not everyone has the benefit of an occupational pension). I just felt that this is a vulnerable group in society that deserves some consideration

epm-84

eskbanker said:

Sounds like we're in agreement then - there are no grounds on which to pursue the railcard provider.

Whether or not anyone can pursue a TOC for lack of train service provision will be a separate issue unrelated to use of a railcard - it still seems unlikely to me that a claim would be tenable (except in the limited circumstances I outlined*) but as you say there's always the possibility of some sort of 'go away' gesture....

* the individual train operating companies, who will doubtless have been entitled to suspend or reduce services during the exceptional circumstances, without financial obligation to would-be passengers (except some season ticket holders who do have some rights, and those with reservations on specific services, but not casual occasional travellers).

I was referring to pursuing the train operator not the railcard provider.  The railcard provider have said no to any form of compensation and they've provided the railcard, which is the product that was purchased.

I just noticed what you said earlier is in fact incorrect.  If you buy a ticket with the intention of travelling on a 9am train and it's cancelled then you are entitled to a full refund (without any admin fee applied) if you choose not to travel regardless of what ticket type you have - an Anytime Day Single is treated exactly the same as an Advance Single in this instance.  However, if you want to travel then you can still travel on the next available service (whichever ticket you have) and in that case you may be able to claim Delay Repay.  Some people put in Delay Repay claims after they abandon their journeys and then are shocked to find they are rejected because the underlying principle is the compensation is based on what time you alight a train at your final destination.  Whether there's a COVID-19 pandemic or not doesn't change this, neither does whether or not you hold a seat reservation - many people reserve seats and then travel on a different train for one reason or another!

For the COVID-19 pandemic the government also facilitated that those with season tickets which were still active but had been told to work from home could get pro-rata refunds without an admin fee applying and for those who still needed to travel then some of the route/operator restrictions would be lifted.

Normally timetable changes are publicised 12 weeks in advance and any significant changes like frequency changes or major engineering works which involve replacing trains with buses will be known about even sooner.  The COVID-19 timetable came in at no notice and some train operators continued to say their trains are for essential use only, after the government had lifted the restriction which is why I suggested in exceptional circumstances you might get something by pursuing the relevant train operator.

Thrugelmir

Norah_Bone said:

What about the elderly pensioner who can only afford one or two trips a year to see distant relatives and only if they can get a substantially discounted ticket?. £170 per week does not stretch very far these days (not everyone has the benefit of an occupational pension). I just felt that this is a vulnerable group in society that deserves some consideration

As the money can only be spent once. While in lockdown one assumes that they saved money. More trips could therefore have been taken subsequently. 

nilanteh

Norah_Bone said:

My question was less for my own benefit than for a group that appears to be sadly under-represented in our society. Many elderly people had no option to travel, as they were shielding and even when full lockdown was removed everyone (not just the elderly) was told not to travel unless it was really necessary - and it is still the message today - and I don't think the weekly bingo trip (a comment I took to be a tad condescending btw) would really cut it. For me personally it is not a financial hardship but for others it will be. What about the elderly pensioner who can only afford one or two trips a year to see distant relatives and only if they can get a substantially discounted ticket?. £170 per week does not stretch very far these days (not everyone has the benefit of an occupational pension). I just felt that this is a vulnerable group in society that deserves some consideration

I’m sorry the responses weren’t what you were hoping for. Rail cards are not being refunded for anyone. That includes the 16-25 year olds so the age situation isn’t really relevant. The advice right now is advice. No one is stopping you. If you want to use your card you can. Just take appropriate precautions and make the most of it 

eskbanker

Fair enough, point taken about ticketholders without reservations but, while I wouldn't disagree with the truth of what you posted, I would continue to question its relevance to the subject of the rights or otherwise of railcard holders specifically, rather than the more generic community of inconvenienced travellers!

pdel61

eskbanker said:

pdel61 said:

So the cost of a 3 year senior railcard I believe is £70 for 156 weeks, which is a little under 45p per week and we were in lockdown for 8 weeks, so I guess a refund of £3.59 could be regarded as due.

The railcard holder might regard it that way, but as the provider (with government backing) doesn't then the point is moot!

I wasn't really suggesting otherwise, it was merely to highlight the small amount of money we're talking about here and if it would be all worth the effort of pursuing. Maybe if they split the difference and extended the cards by a month that would hae been a good gesture. 

Thrugelmir

pdel61 said:

eskbanker said:

pdel61 said:

So the cost of a 3 year senior railcard I believe is £70 for 156 weeks, which is a little under 45p per week and we were in lockdown for 8 weeks, so I guess a refund of £3.59 could be regarded as due.

The railcard holder might regard it that way, but as the provider (with government backing) doesn't then the point is moot!

Maybe if they split the difference and extended the cards by a month that would hae been a good gesture. 

Everybody wants a free lunch these days with somebody else picking up the tab. .